Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Led Zeppelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject
Led Zeppelin
General information
Main project page talk
Project log talk
Policy talk
Tasks
To do list talk
Red links talk
Missing articles talk
Article assessments talk
Tools and info
Categories talk
Newsletter talk
Handy infoboxes
Infobox musical artist talk
Infobox person talk
Infobox album talk
Infobox song talk
Misc templates
Article talk page talk
Userbox talk
User page talk
Article navbox talk
edit · changes

Promo CDs

[edit]

hello,

I have added {{Remove-section|December 2010}} in the discography, because I think this section should be removed and isn't notable in discographies. Please make suggestions here. I have also improved the lead and cleaned up other things. It is really close to become a FL. Keep it up! Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

[edit]

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on plagiarism issue

[edit]

There is a request for comment regarding allegations of plagiarism against Led Zeppelin. It is hoped that this RfC will settle disputed matters regarding how and where this information should be included in Led Zeppelin's main article; if at all. All members of this WikiProject are invited to participate in the discussion and asked to give comment where they are able to help resolve this long standing dispute. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings WikiProject Led Zeppelin Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Led Zeppelin.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Led Zeppelin, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As you may have seen, I have recently complained about close paraphrasing and potential copyright violations in several Led Zeppelin articles. For example, I reduced Achilles Last Stand to a redirect not because it's not independently notable (it might be) or I don't like the song (quite the opposite), but that the prose seemed to be largely lifted wholesale from Dave Lewis, or consist of overlong quotations which would fall foul of close paraphrasing concerns anyway. Indeed, this was the whole reason to revive the project; as I think we need a co-ordinated effort to go through these articles, improve them, and stamp out the plagiarism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I've trimmed a couple, but I'm sure there are more. The excessive amount of quotes may be in response to constant unwarranted reverts by a certain editor(s), who claimed that the references didn't support the article text as written. To prioritize, I went through the latest song report and revised some of the importance ratings: changed a lot of Page, Plant, and Jones solo/side projects-related articles to Low; changed most lower rated songs on LZ I – Physical Graffiti to High; changed most compilations to Mid. More songs should be Top: "Whole Lotta Love", "Kashmir", & ? After next month's report, it can be fine tuned. I think the better parts of "Nobody's Fault but Mine" can be added to "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine" (consistent with "In My Time of Dying", "When the Levee Breaks", etc.) Some non-notable songs probably should be redirected ("LA Drone", & ?) —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think as long as somebody's got the time to go through and re-assess the articles (and compared to some projects there aren't too many), then we'll have a better assessment of what work is left to do. I want to see all start and stub class articles upgraded by the end of the year, as a starting point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RitchieRitchie333: While waiting for the next song report, I noticed the project assessment page. Most of these statistics are no longer generated and I wonder if the long list of parameters in {{WikiProject Led Zeppelin}} is needed (WP:LZ tracks 307 articles). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The July report is out. A couple of observations:

  • The currently identified Top importance articles[1] look OK, except maybe "Dazed and Confused" that has a pre-LZ history (move to High?). Not sure what is missing.
  • Similarly with High[2], except the songs with pre-LZ history: "Gallows Pole", "In My Time of Dying", "You Shook Me", "I Can't Quit You Baby", and "Nobody's Fault but Mine" (move to Mid?).
  • Mid[3] Maybe move to High: "Good Times Bad Times", "Ramble On", "Thank You", "The Lemon Song", "Ten Years Gone", and "Heartbreaker".

Before I re-assess for quality, what about the project assessment page and all the parameters in the assessment template (unsure if you got the August 5 ping)? Also, so far nobody has fixed "For Your Life", "Royal Orleans", "Hots", and "Tea". These and several others on In Through the Out Door and Coda do not interest me – leave as/make redirects, until someone writes proper articles? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I generally think unless a song has charted as a single, or can otherwise be shown to meet GNG or NSONG (such as having another band cover it), we should redirect. As far as the assessment goes, I've never really paid attention to that, so if you've got some good ideas, go for that. I'll have a look through the lists and get back to, but from a gut feeling, "top" is the band article itself and the main songs and discography lists that encompass their entire career, "high" is the band members, key personnel like Peter Grant, the studio albums and possibly their best known songs like Dazed, Whole Lotta Love and Stairway (though probably not much else), "mid" is individual songs and associated personnel like Jason Bonham, Richard Cole, Bron-Yr-Aur, "low" is just stuff only tangentially related to the group. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the coding for the project template parameters was removed not long after it was created over ten years ago, but was never removed from the template documentation or assessment page. Since the extra statistics are not generated, I've made the changes (will not affect the current main table & report). After looking at some other projects, the importance ratings need to be redone more in line with your suggestions. I'll work on these along with the articles themselves. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'm continuing to trim the overuse of quotes, OR, etc., and re-assess as I go along (there's a lag, so they don't show up in the reports for a while). I've come to the concert articles (over 30). Almost all were created by Edelmand and rely on Lewis & Pallet's Led Zeppelin: The Concert File and ledzeppelin.com. Some provide commentary (including some over quotations & OR), others are mostly set lists, dates, venues. Most are assessed B class and Mid importance (I notice you downgraded several to Start that were marked as GAs) – a banned user was responsible for most of the assessments of LZ articles. Mid is now used for most of their songs, compilations, and later live albums. I don't think that most of the tour articles are at this level of importance, if they are really needed at all. Any suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tour articles seem to turn up all over the place. Many of them are just list of dates, and occasionally I wander round and AfD a bunch of them per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursery Cryme Tour). I think some of the later tours like 1977 and Knebworth do meet WP:GNG simply by the extent of reliably reported information about them; for the others, I'm not so sure. As far as the copyvio concerns, I think we need to open a WP:CCI on Edelmand. Frankly, it's only that he hasn't edited for a month that has meant I haven't blocked him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I see you've been working on the North American Tour 1968–1969 article. Maybe all the American tours could be merged and simplified into a master with highlights by year (similarly for UK/Europe/etc.) Or instead of by geography, by year or by "Associated album". Some of the existing articles only cover a few dates and, clearly, separate articles are not needed (the latest popular page report shows most near the bottom). —Ojorojo (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't worked out what to do with the tour articles yet. As I've been reading through various sources (particularly Lewis) it struck me that the early US tours were vital in establishing Led Zeppelin's reputation, and so they definitely deserve an article, I'm just not sure where. Possibly "Led Zeppelin I tour", though that's a made-up name, as I don't think it was actually called anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of content in the project

[edit]

User:Ojorojo, why are you removing the banner from so many articles? Is there consensus for this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking for the members' projects was removed in January 2008, so no reports are generated (see comment above). Their individual articles and discographies are retained, but their various recordings outside of LZ aren't; with limited resources, only more closely connected articles are now included in the project. BTW, are "Shine It All Around" and Soundstage: Robert Plant and the Strange Sensation really viable articles? After eleven plus years, they still look like completely uninformative WP:PERMASTUBS. Better to redirect to Plant's discography. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ojorojo I don't see any relevant passages above for not tagging side projects. And yes, they probably are permastubs but I don't think the encyclopedia is enhanced by removing what content there is and redirecting. How would that be more informative for readers? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a very good reason why turning these into redirects enhances the encyclopedia (or at least makes what he have confirm to policy better) - as we are discovering, many LZ articles are plagued with close paraphrasing and copyvios, and reducing stubs to redirects gives us a quick and easy way of removing potential copyright violations from the encyclopedia without spending too much effort on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can allay your fears for those two articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Consensus is against permastubs: WP:NSONGS includes "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album"; WP:NALBUMS is similar "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."
This is consistent with WP:Notability: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." (see WP:WHYN). You've been editing for 13+ years and haven't figured this out?
—Ojorojo (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: You don't have to be rude. "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." It's fine to discuss the viability of a permanent stub. Also, there are thousands of pages of documentation from the manual of style, guidelines, policies, and internal WikiProject preferences; no one is familiar with it all. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that notability is clearly established now for the song. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World is listed as a genre, but it isn't explained or referenced. Does "Shine It All Around" use different instruments or musical scales? Are there special backing musicians? Who are all these co-songwriters? Where and when was it written, do the lyrics have any significance? etc., etc. The Stereogum ref mentions a drumbeat similar to "When the Levee Breaks" and that the chorus is noteworthy. A "reasonably detailed article" should include more info. Otherwise, it doesn't tell anything about the song, just some release and chart statistics. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for redirects

[edit]

These songs weren't released as A-side singles, never or rarely performed, don't appear on any official live albums or videos, nor on the surviving member's choices for the Mothership "best of" album. Cover versions are often by tribute bands or on various artist tribute albums. Of course, there is so much written about LZ, that it is possible fill up an article with recording and release details and various biographer's impressions, etc. But I don't think LZ is at the Beatles level of "everything they ever did is notable", which is how they're currently treated. It would take a lot of work to bring all of these to a "C" class (especially after removing the BS), that could be spent on more important songs, albums, and bios. Any suggestions, additions, subtractions, etc.? —Ojorojo (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: Only one that I think should definitely have an article is "Hey, Hey, What Can I Do" as it was a single B-side, wasn't on the standard studio albums and a redirect may be non-obvious. I won't object to "Living Loving Maid (She's Just a Woman)" being a standalone article as it was a B-side, performed by Plant solo and is notorious as having never been performed live by either LZ or Page / Plant. I think "Wearing and Tearing" may just squeak into standalone territory by being performed by Page and Plant post-Zeppelin, but that's a marginal case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Fine, "Hey Hey" was the last added after some hesitation – it's probably noteworthy as the only non-group studio album release for years. Maybe your recent redirects will shift the focus to their more significant works. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted most of the above to redirects, as you've probably noticed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a Template:Led Zeppelin songs to replace the individual album navboxes. I will add it and remove the self-redirects from the album articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notice

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RFC: Regarding genre listings in infobox for music band. Specifically; whether or not to include rock and roll to the list of genres in the infobox for the Led Zeppelin article. Thank you - wolf 08:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalism

[edit]

2601:500:8401:9A90:29AE:598D:83F:6C0F is carrying on earlier banned editor(s) efforts to introduce false information to LZ articles. Anything resembling their previous attempts should be reverted, notwithstanding references (often falsified). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it if I can. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin on Led Zeppelin

[edit]

Ojorojo (and anyone else looking in) - I had a quick browse through the new book the other day and wasn't exactly bowled over. It's basically a reprint of old magazine interviews, rather than anything new and substantial, and I spotted two mistakes in the first piece I looked at; Page didn't quit the Yardbirds causing them to disband, he was the only one not to leave, and he didn't play every stringed instrument - Jones was more than capable of picking up guitar and mandolin. Others may have different views but I doubt I'll be running at it full speed to use it as a source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

[edit]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Achilles Last Stand" is close to Good Article status

[edit]

I reviewed Achilles Last Stand, which had recently been nominated for Good Article status. It's not quite GA, but it's close! My GA Review is brief--take a look, and then perhaps you could help fine tune the article. :O) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the reviewer's points have been addressed, but we'll see what the Guild of Copy Editors can do with it.[4] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the edits you made Ojorojo, including the details you added. // The Guild of Copy Editors have a backlog so instead of waiting for them, I suggest that you and any other interested Wikipedians work on the article until you believe it definitely meets Good Article criteria and then nominate it again. I've pitched in a bit with some edits and will try to do so again if I can. Another reviewer will need to do the second GA review when that time comes, but hopefully they will see the improvements and the overall quality of the article.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop

[edit]

The song/single issue involving Misty Mountain Hop has been discussed at Talk:Misty Mountain Hop. -- George Ho (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1st album in recent Top albums chart?

[edit]

After a chart position was added,[5] I did some checking. LZ1 is listed at #45 in Rolling Stone's Top 200 albums chart for July 12–18, 2019, their only album in the chart and one of only a handful of oldies (Beatles, Eagles, Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, etc.)[6] I looked through another ten weeks of data and LZ1 consistently shows up in the mid-40s to mid-50s (none of their other albums appears higher, but I didn't check the lower positions). I checked a few Billboard charts for the same period and only found Mothership in the 150s. LZ1 doesn't seem to be in the news and there's nothing on their website that would explain the album's popularity. Does anyone know anything about this? —Ojorojo (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

[edit]
Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Led_Zeppelin&oldid=1085288194"